Constitution of India – 51A (g) and 51A (j).
U.P. Urban Planning and Development of Act, 1993- Sec.13

The Land Designated for the Public Park cannot be used for any other Purpose.

The petitioner approached the High Court to issue the Writ of Mandamus against the Ghaziabad Development Authority to stop the use of place which is meant for the public park for any other purpose. The State of Uttar Pradesh passed U.P. Urban Planning and Development of Act, 1993 enacted to provide certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to the plan. For this Ghaziabad Development Authority (G.D.A) was set up under the Act. The G.D.A. prepared a plan for sector Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad which refers to proposed public buildings, residential houses and plots of land for citizens amenities and civic amenities including open spaces for public park namely Adu park.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the G.D.A. had not taken any steps so far to develop the said public park. Moreover, the petitioner alleged that the respondents were marking time to carve out the plots on such open space dedicated for Public Park in the plan and alienate the same with a view to earning huge profits. The petitioner further argued that the G.D.A. cannot alter the plan duly approved by the State Government to the detriment of the public. The respondent could not keep the park undeveloped with an ulterior motive.

The counsel for the respondent argued that as the G.D.A. is empowered amend the plan under Section 13(b) of the said Act. So mandamus could not be granted.

The Court after hearing to the both sides held that the neither G.D.A. nor the State Government amend the plan in such a way so as to destroy in such a way so as to destroy its basic feature allowing conversion of open spaces meant for public parks. The Court also held that the executing plan will remain in incomplete unless an open space reserved for Public Park developed. Good parks expensively laid out are not only for aesthetic appreciation, but in fast developing towns having conglomeration of buildings but in the fast developing towns having conglomeration of building they are a necessity. The importance of public parks cannot be under estimated. The Court further observed that the respondent being a instrumentality of the State have failed to discharge the fundamental duties under Art. 51A (g) and 51A (j).

                  Hence, the Court issued the Writ of Mandamus and also gave certain directions for the development of Adu Park.